Newswise — Given the recent change in the Supreme Court’s make up, it is hard to predict which way the court will rule in United States v. Texas, a politically charged lawsuit about the legality of President Barack Obama’s executive actions on immigration, an expert in immigration law said.
Carolina Antonini, an immigration lawyer and adjunct professor of law at Georgia State University's College of Law, can help break down the possible outcomes in the case. Contact information is available to logged-in registrants of the Newswise system.
The lawsuit was filed in regards to President Obama’s immigration deferred action program, Deferred Action for Parental Accountability (DAPA), which he announced in November 2014.
The policy attempts to grant deferred action to illegal immigrants who are the parents of a U.S. citizen or a lawful permanent resident, allowing them to remain in the United States.
Antonini explained that DAPA followed another program for persons who had arrived in the United States as children, Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA). The DAPA program is accompanied by an expansion of DACA, allowing the inclusion of other young children not covered by the original program.
Texas and 25 other states, including Georgia, filed a lawsuit in federal district court in the Southern District of Texas to try to block the implementation of the programs, claiming that the expanded DACA and DAPA violate federal procedural laws and the Constitution.
“Interestingly enough, major cities in some of the 26 states, such as Houston and Atlanta, publically stated their support for the President’s action, placing states and their cities in direct conflict on the issue,” Antonini said.
The Supreme Court took certiorari on the Fifth Circuit’s February 15, 2015 injunction of the implementation of the programs. Specifically, the states make the following claims:• Expanded DACA and DAPA violate the “Take Care Clause” of the Constitution, which states that the President must “take care that the laws be faithfully executed.”
• Expanded DACA and DAPA violate the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) because these initiatives are arbitrary and capricious or otherwise not in accordance with the immigration laws.
• The federal government did not comply with certain technical procedural requirements under the APA, including notice-and-comment rulemaking, before it announced the expanded DACA and DAPA initiatives. The Fifth Circuit courts did not address the “Take Care Clause” in their decisions. Instead, they based their decisions on the government’s alleged failure to comply with the APA, Antonini said.
“However, when the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case, it directed both sides to also address whether the President’s actions violated the ‘Take Care Clause’ of the Constitution via additional briefing, suggesting that it wants to resolve all the issues in the case,” she said. There are several questions before the court, Antonini said. First, the Court will consider whether the states have standing, or legal capacity, to bring the lawsuit:
“Whether a state that voluntarily provides a subsidy to all ‘aliens’ with deferred action has Article III standing and a justiciable cause of action under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) to challenge the Guidance because it will lead to more ‘aliens’ having deferred action.”
If that issue is resolved in the affirmative, the Court will address the constitutionality and procedural questions: Do expanded DACA and DAPA violate federal law? Did the federal government follow the APA’s notice-and-comment procedures when it announced expanded DACA and DAPA? Do expanded DACA and DAPA violate the Take Care Clause of the Constitution (Article II, section 3)? Antonini said possible outcomes of the case include:
1. The Court dismisses the case for lack of standing.
2. The Court reverses the Fifth Circuit on a critical legal issue, allowing the initiatives to move forward.
3. The Court affirms the Fifth Circuit decision, which would uphold the preliminary injunction. Antonini teaches immigration law as an adjunct faculty member at Georgia State University's College of Law. A partner at Antonini and Cohen Immigration Law Group and a former social worker, Antonini has represented indigent immigrants in international human rights and immigration matters for many years. She has appeared in numerous media interviews, including on CNN and NPR, and has been quoted widely in various publications.For a biography of Antonini, visit law.gsu.edu/profile/carolina-antonini.
RSS